JK 1595 
.B8 



^0' 

V <?>" \'*»•“>" <!» 

\/ * * • o„. o .0 **/'*%> V * y • <V o 

*V%5?A<* ^ V*S^K- ^ -ft. ^ 

«u* nssr0&: • 

a$? , t ' * * *<£>. 0 t O * o * *^q „ L < a „ 



«b v* : *"""~ 

* .ttj’' / * \> .nr«* y 

c\ ,0 V ,«V *> \> . * • 

V A* .V3©V. «,. A * 





>P *^> * 

„ _ * rv * 

* « 1 A 0 © « ° 

°+ C\ <0 %*••'«, *> 

% ^ ^ % vs 





/C 

^ o • 

* « 

-** cr 

® ^ ^ 

v v^v 

*• c\ 

^ ft/ * a ? A * r. *. 

* rK\ A" cy * 

'//A* ‘ J 

A V ^ o 

♦ «^v v^ 0 

&” 'o **H7**’ A <V '.-.»• ,G 

? ,•■<, ^o Vi> a", <b. 

if* .*^/*fc 2 -> * *P. 


- C> 

* *p *ce 

* *S ^ ~ 4 4 L V v 

■V <* '»..* <Cr 

.A 4 * , • 1 A*. ^ r 

* ^ ft ' 

V* cr 


<• * ** - 

ft? ,J k • 

* V. “* 




° ^ °' c ' 

'* <? V 

\ %>_ r 4 







•p 4' *ji 

* /? iT 1 a ^riM^ © . VA. 

.* ^ V •M&. A* *j 

, 0 ' 0 °i%. ; 0 . Ay" 


0*0 

v * o A’ 

" *o K 















• ^ :& ! M: w 'Jilt: '’V 

a v ^ *°wW** : SW° A Vy ^ ° wWtf* v>^ 

*y ^ °y^V4 -ay ^ *y 

A <“> '°. a .Cr \d ♦O'V* A <y ^o, a .(r 

^ . •> ' * * <S> (V , o « © * ^ A V . t I a <J> /Ov 0 « 0 

► t *£__ f, U .I’d' ^ " U 0 



■ -#>* ^ 

* V* Cr 


°* < * ip^* ^ ^ “ ^An^- •’*" i7 ° -o5 c ^ 

►- '^* .y v ‘^c?* y v y °o % 



> 4r '-ZS / V \ ’ 

o. * * , -i • 3 \0 

<V^ s • • / ^ 

“U aV 

*o * 




tf /1 


* A ■> 

A v ^ «- % 

A 1 v V 

0^ c ° M ° ♦ '*"b i 

' •^v-^ ^ <T * 

* *b ^ : 

* 3,° 

, *&%&&/ 0 * ^ *. 

°* *••’■ ft ~ 
o. a 




4> -K*, ^ 0^ 

% *£ 0 • 

’- ^ o« ; 

' ^ °^ * 



,«x/\. ' 

* <*? ^ 

4 <%y - 




•A V » t > a 

% o y / 

" ^o & : 


S J. 0-7 rf. 

* /X *£&* * 


o Xv ^ 

;° '’Vv’ » 

* J>**, 

‘ & % • 


*° y- o ^/f,*’ y y 

r ^ s, v* ^ v ^ y • 0 -» <? av s 5 * f '* \; 



O N < 



v >y * 


v*\ 


a u- o : 

♦ w ^ 

* *S ^ ”» “0. v ci>. “» 

A 'o * *- 14 .O' v? '' 

^ .«■'*-» ^ -Cr & 0 " 0 * ^ 


_ t O. ^ 

« y y : 

, j y^- ” 

... -.^ ,* . V A » 

. o *'y 

* T ^p 4 ' 

* V* n> 0 





0^0 

• —>. -o y * 


' * 0 ^*v y 

°<t. ^ ff » 1 * A 0 <ro *' 0 

A.0 ' - s * * ' ^ 

A?" 4 

^r. cy ♦ 

t y V 

*<}&'*>> v^/mW * <t? & 

a <> '...‘ ,cr \s, ^ 

■ y c*v\ 



° ^5 ^ 

/ o 

y .. y * 


^ ^ 


v* 


v *r.*.°- o, 



°<, v y * 


' r y. - 

. 1 r\/ cJa ^ . 

A 0 

^y y.M'. y> 





k> ° 
* y %A o 




^ 0 < 


: v\ 

* A vJ" 

* V 

„ .*/ 

A yJJrpl' \ y .* 

'fu-ct o 

; y°- : . 


0 N o 




O ^ fJJ <J+ *> ' ♦ <L r 0_ ^ 

V - V 2 ’" ** ,1# A 0 .. \ %NO ^ 

^ V V ^ V ° C\ AV ^ 5 . ^ 


O (4 O 


W 


« /. 




« t 


A^ o »■ 1 * 

% ° /r y 

«> A *•■ 

x> V 























































































, 6 &, 


CU*-*- tJUULt.j W Z'Z' ' v; T - 


$toges and f peaficatto 

AGAINST 

RICHARD BUSTEED, 

XT- S. JU DGE 

OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED 
STATES IN ALABAMA. 

- . , > /^ / ^ 










4 


* J 


, \ 




/ 













» / 

r 





* 






\ 












To the Honorable the Members of the Senate and 

House of Representatives in Congress Assembled: 

An investigation into the conduct and character of Rich¬ 
ard Busteed, United States District Judge of Alabama, will 
establish clearly that he is an ignorant, arbitrary and tyranni¬ 
cal Judge ; and it is the universal opinion in the community 
in which his office is exercised that he is also a corrupt 
Judge. 

It can certainly be established that he has violated his 
duty as a Judge and his official oath, by respecting persons 
in his judgments. 

First, as to ignorance —which is so gross as to render his 
administration of the law a mere farce. 

The bill of exceptions signed by him in the case of Har¬ 
per vs. Graves et ah, will of itself go far to establish this 
charge. 

This bill of exceptions shows that in an action of eject¬ 
ment brought by Harper against Graves and others, the 
Plaintiff introduced evidence of a sale by the Marshal, under 
execution against Matt. Gayle, of the premises sued for, and 
the purchase thereof by Plaintiff’, and conveyance by the 
Marshal. 

The Plaintiff’ then closed, without showing any judgment 
against Gayle, any title in Gayle, or any possession of the 
land by him; and Defendant moved the Court to exclude 
the evidence as irrelevant and insufficient. This the Court 
refused to do. 

Afterwards Defendants showed that the land in question 
embraced the mansion house of the deceased, and that he 
resided there at the time of his death, and that they were 
in possession of the premises holding under his widow; 


2 


and asked the Court to charge the jury that no action of 
ejectment could be maintained, unless dower had been as¬ 
signed the widow in the premises. The law of Alabama 
recognizes this right in the widow, and there has never been 
any question that it is her right to hold possession of the 
mansion house and land attached until her dower is assigned. 
Yet the Judge ruled this to be no defence. 

On every occasion in which he has presided on trials of 
information for the condemnation of property as confiscated 
under the acts of Congress for the suppression of the rebel¬ 
lion, he has refused to allow the claimants of the property a 
trial by jury ; and has proceeded to sentence of condemna¬ 
tion, without reducing the evidence to writing, except in such 
notes as he chose to take of the evidence, and which he keeps 
himself among his private papers, and yet constantly refers 
to as part of the record. 

It is also a fact which will be established by the clerk of 
the Court, and many other witnesses, that this Judge ad¬ 
journs his Court without having entries made of the judg¬ 
ments rendered on the common law side of the Court, and per¬ 
mits the clerk to enter minutes of judgments months after 
the adjournment of the Court. 

In support of the charge of ignorance and incompetencv, 
the records of the Court may be examined. They will 
demonstrate the fact; and the whole bar will concur in de¬ 
claring that they have never witnessed such lamentable in¬ 
capacity even in the most inferior tribunals of tho State. 

As to his arbitrary and tyrannical conduct, no description 
of it can do justice to the subject. 

He habitually outrages and insults coun-sel, parties and 
witnesses before him, and seems so entirely unconscious of 
what is due to the dignity of his office and common decency, 
that he is surprised when they retire indignantly from his 
Court, disclaims all intention of offence, and begs them to 
return to practice before him. 


3 


Every member of the bar of Montgomery and Mobile will 
be a witness to these facts, and, if there be any exception 
it will he found in the late District Attorney at Montgomery, 
who was removed from office for ignorance, incapacity, and 
malversation in office, and who is strongly suspected of hav¬ 
ing administered his office as part of a partnership, in which 
the Judge who decided the causes was the other partner. 

This latter charge can be fully sustained by a chain of 
circumstantial evidence, conclusive in itself, but too volumi¬ 
nous to be recited here, and will form a chief feature in the 
charge of corruption against the Judge. 

As to the charge of corruption — 

It cannot be expected that a decent man could know per¬ 
sonally anything of the main fact, the actual receipt of 
money by a Judge for judicial action. But counsel know of 
many things which they do not know personally. They can 
name persons who will be able to make proof of corruption, 
and they can be, and frequently are, satisfied from what they 
do know, that bribes have been given and received ; and 
if any body of men authorized to make investigation into 
such matters should be sent to this point or Mobile, the writer 
of this paper and other gentlemen whom he knows, will 
furnish the names of witnesses who will prove facts which 
would convict the unjust Judge beyond all reasonable 
doubt. 

The officers of the Court, so far as he has the selection of 
them, are fit agents for the purposes for which a corrupt 
man would require them. 

He solicits men to bring causes before him ; consults with 
them and their counsel while they are before him, and it is 
fair to infer, as there can be no honest motive for such con¬ 
duct, that it is upon some hope or expectation of reward. 

Such is his utter neglect and contempt for judicial integ¬ 
rity and his oath of office, that the result of a trial before 
him may be predicted with tolerable certainty, without 


4 


reference to the facts of the case, if either party is upon 
especially agreeable terms with him. And some cases have 
occurred where strangers have been benefitted by bearing 
the name of some friend of the Judge, and being mistaken 
for him. 

HENRY C. SEMPLE. 

Montgomery, Alabama, 18 th April, 1868. 

The above memorial was drawn by me and delivered to 
J. 0. Keffer, to be handed to some member of Cougress, to 
be introduced into the House of Representatives. He asked 
me if he might refer to witnesses to prove the facts stated, 
and I replied yes, Out put nothing over my name. At the 
time of being offered by Mr. Kelly, of Pennsylvania, the 
names below were added to the memorial with this state 
ment. 

“ The following are the names of a very few of the witnes¬ 
ses, men of every shade of political views and diversified 
antecedents, who may be relied on to establish the bad 
character of this unjust judge : 

Major General WAGNER SWAYNE. 

Hon. WM. H. SMITH, Governor Elect. 

JOSIAH MORRIS, Montgomery. 

E. H. METCALF, Montgomery. 

E. Y. FAIR, Montgomery. 

GEORGE W. STONE, Montgomery. 

Genl. WILLARD WARNER, Montgomery. 

BENJ. F. PORTER, Greenville. 

Col. R. M. MOORE, Selma. 

Genl. WM. McK. DUNN, Atlanta. 

THOMAS 0. GLASCOCK, Montgomery. 

JOHN A. CAMPBELL, Mobile. 

GUSTAVUS HORTON, Mobile. 

L. F. MELLEN, Cleveland , Ohio. 

Y ALEX. McKINSTRY, Mobile. 

D. S. ARNOLD, Montgomery. 

Hon. ROBT. M. PATTON; Governor. 

THOMAS. H. WATTS, Montgomery. 

WM. T. HATCHETT, Supt. Registration, Montgomery. 


5 


Col. EDWIN BEECHER, U. S. A., Montgomery 
JOHN A. ELMORE, Montgomery. 

ABRAHAM MARTIN, Montgomery. 

BENJ. FITZPATRICK, near Montgomery. 

JOHN T. MORGAN, Selma. 

THOS. J. JUDGE, Montgomery. 

GEORGE ELY, Montgomery 
ALBERT GRIFFIN, Mobile. 

V CHAS. H. MOULTON, Mobile. 

JOHN M. WITHERS, Mobile. 

ROBERT SMITH, of firm of Smith Sf Herndon , Mobile. 
GEO. W. STONE, Montgomery. 

Genl. D. E. COON, Selma. 

MAYER LEHMAN, Montgomery 

The memorial was referred to the Committee on the Judi¬ 
ciary, and, after an oral statement made to the Commit¬ 
tee, I prepared the following : 


CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS 

AGAINST 

RICHARD BUSTEED, 

U. S. JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED 
STATES IN ALABAMA. 


Charge I. 

That Richard Busteed, Judge of the District Courts of the 
United States for the State of Alabama, did wilfully and 
corruptly, for his own gam and pleasure, conduct the affairs 
of his office of Judge, without regard to justice, or his official 
oath and duty, in the State of Alabama, from the fall of 
1865 to the first of June, 1868. 

Specification ls2. 

That Richard Busteed, while exercising the powers of his 
office in Alabama, in the spring of 1866, did undertake to 
act, and did act, as the counsel, agent, and legal adviser of 
one Jacob Stan wood, then of the City of Boston, Mass., 
now of Lowndes County, Alabama, in and about the ne¬ 
gotiation by the said Stan wood for the purchase from one 
James A. Turner of a tract of land in the County of Lowndes, 
State of Alabama; that the said land was purchased about 
that time by the said Stan wood from the said Turner, upon 
the legal opinion of the said Busteed as to the sufficiency 
of the title, and his private opinion, after an examination 
of the plantation, as to the reasonableness of the price de¬ 
manded therefor ; yet, the said Stanwood having become 
dissatisfied with the said purchase, and anxious to procure 



7 


a recission of the sale, the said Richard Busteed did unlaw¬ 
fully consult with said Stan wood in relation thereto, and 
did advise him to employ certain counsel named by him, 
and to proceed in the District Court of the United States 
for the Middle District of Alabama. That thereupon the 
said Stanwood filed a bill of complaint in said Court against 
the said Turner, praying an injunction to restrain the collec¬ 
tion by Turner of a portion of the purchase money, and 
that the contract of purchase so made by him under the 
advice and counsel of said Judge should be rescinded; and 
the said Judge corruptly and unlawfully assumed jurisdiction 
of said cause, and granted an injunction therein in the spring 
of 1868. 

Witnesses as to Specification 1st: James A. Turner, Bal¬ 
timore, Md.; J. M. Dillehay, Danville, Ky.; Jacob Stan¬ 
wood, Lowndes County, Ala.; William Turner, Montgomery, 
Ala.; John A. Elmore, Montgomery, Ala. 

Specification 2d. 

That he did make and act upon a corrupt agreement with 
one James Q. Smith, unlawfully and under color of fees and 
allowances to be awarded to said Smith by his orders, to 
obtain large sums of money from the people of Alabama 
and from the United States, with a view of appropriating 
it to the use of himself, the said Busteed; and that he did 
thus obtain large .sums of money, the property of the United 
States or of some of the people thereof. 

Witnesses to Specification 2d: Josiah Morris, Mont¬ 
gomery, Ala.; E. E. McCloskey, Knoxville, Tenn.; Barna 
McKinney, Montgomery, Ala; The Bar of Montgomery 
and Selma generally. 

Specification 3 d. 

That the said Richard Busteed, while Judge of the Dis¬ 
trict Courts of the United States for Alabama, did, as such 
Judge, render a judgment or decree in a cause pending be- 


8 


fore him in the District Court of the United States for the 
Middle District of Alabama in favor of the U. S. and 
an informer, (not named in the proceedings,) against one 
Josiah Morris and one J. F. Johnson, for the sum of $30,000, 
or thereabouts; and, upon being urged by said Morris to 
act upon a writ of error or appeal bond which he offered 
for his approval, did say to the said Morris, in a room occu¬ 
pied by him, the said Busteed, in the Custom House, at 
Mobile—one Jacob Wilson, a body servant of said Judge, 
and Acting Deputy Marshal, being at the time present— 
"you ought to settle this case,” or words to that effect; and, 
upon the said Morris saying he was tired of it, and was 
willing to pay the value of the cotton, the subject of the 
controversy. $5,000 or $5,500, the said Judge then re¬ 
marked, " You ought to settle this with Smith,” (the District 
Attorney ;) and, on Morris replying that he could have no 
intercourse with Smith, the Judge said that he would make 
Smith settle it if he could see him ; and, being urged by 
Morris and Jacob Wilson, who was present, to go to Mont¬ 
gomery, he finally agreed to go for the purpose indicated, 
and did go. That Morris retired from the Judge’s room fol¬ 
lowed immediately by said Wilson, who told him that the 
Judge wanted the money to take up with him to settle that 
case, and thereupon the said Morris delivered him checks to 
bearer to the sum of $5,000 or $5,500, which went into the 
hands of the said Busteed, and was corruptly received and 
retained by him for his own use. 

Witnesses to Specification 3d: J. Morris, Montgomery, 
Alabama; James R. Powell, Montgomery, Alabama; J. F. 
Johnson, Montgomery, Alabama; Samuel F. Rice, Mont¬ 
gomery, Alabama; M. J. Saffold, Washington, D. C. 

Specification 4 th. 

Same as 3d, down to the recital of the fact of the receipt 
of the money by Jacob Wilson, and then add : And the 


said Richard Busteed well knowing that the said money had 
been received and obtained by the said Wilson under the cir¬ 
cumstances stated, and that it was known to the community, 
did retain the said Wilson in confidential employment about 
his person by way of advertising for bribes. 

Same witnesses as 3d Specification with Wm. P. Chilton, 
Montgomery, Alabama. 

Specification 5th. 

That the. sum of money mentioned in the 3d Specification 
as having been decreed against the said Morris and Johnson, 
having been paid by the said Morris to John Hardy the U. 
S. Marshal, the said Richard Busteed, well knowing that 
the same belonged of right either to the U. S., or to said 
Morris, corruptly ordered in vacation one half of the sum to 
be paid to some other person or persons, and procured the same 
to be so paid by the Marshal, in fraud of the rights of the IL 
S., or of the said Morris, the said Morris having executed 
at the time and filed in the Court a writ of error bond, with 
sufficient sureties in double the amount of said judgment or 
decree, to obtain a supersedeas of said judgment or decree. 

Witnessess to the 5th Specification: John Hardy, Mont¬ 
gomery, Alabama ; E. E. McCloskey, Knoxville, Tennessee; 
Samuel F. Rice, Montgomery, Alabama; Wm. P. Chilton, 
Montgomery, Alabama ;■ J. Morris, Montgomery, Alabama. 

Specification fi/A. 

That Richard Busteed, acting as Judge of the District 
Court of the United States for the State of Alabama, and 
having as such Judge a certain authority over Registers of 
Bankruptcy, nominated by Chief Justice Chase, did wil¬ 
fully and corruptly require and demand of George E. Spen¬ 
cer and-Burke, who had been nominated as Registers 

in Bankruptcy in said State, by the said Chief Justice, that 
as a condition for being permitted to exercise the functions 
of the offices to which they had been so nominated, they 



10 


should severally agree to divide with him the emoluments 
of said offices, or pay to him a considerable sum of money, 
and did corruptly receive the same. 

Witnesses to the 6th specification: George E. Spencer, 

Ala. Address not known; -Burke, Ala. Address 

not known. 

Specification 1th. 

That Richard Busteed, claiming as Judge of the United 
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, 
the power of appointment or removal of the Clerk of the 
said Court, did wilfully and corruptly require and receive 
of L. W. Day, Clerk of said Court, a sum of money or a 
share of the fees of the said office, as a condition of his 
appointment to, or retention in said office. 

Witness: L. W. Day, Clerk, &c., Huntsville, Ala. 

Charge II. 

That Richard Busteed, United States Judge of the District 
Courts of Alabama, did, in his capacity as Judge, sell, delay, 
and deny justice to the citizens of the .United States, in vio¬ 
lation of his official oath and duty as Judge; and instead of 
using the powers of his office to establish justice, exercised 
them to hinder, deny, and delay justice, to the scandal and 
shame of all good citizens of the United States. 

Specification \st. 

That the Confederate States, (so-called,) having acquired 
by purchase and conveyance from the owners thereof, many 
tracts of land in the State of Alabama for the purpose of 
erecting arsenals, foundries, and other works, to prosecute 
a war against the United States, and among these pieces of 
property, having acquired title by con veyanee and purchase 
from one Philip I. Weaver of a certain tract of land in or 
near Selma, Alabama, and having entered into possession 
thereof, and occupied and used the same for the purpose of 



11 


& Naval foundry; the said property with all other property 
of the so-called Confederate States in the 8"ate of Alabama, 
by the convention between Lieutenant General Richard 
Taylor, and Major General E. R. S. Canby, became the 
property of the United States; and the United States 

by the-section of the act of Congress approved the 

--day of July, 1866, enacted that all such property 

should be taken possession of by the Commissioner of the 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmcn, and abandoned lands, and 
disposed of for purposes therein specified; and Brevet Major 
General Wagner Swayne, Assistant Commissioner, by virtue 
of said act, entered upon and took possession of the said tract of 
land and other lands similarly situated; and the said Richard 
Busteed, Judge as aforesaid, well knowning the said facts, and 
corruptly designing to defeat the purposes of the said act, and 
to divert the said property from the uses specified by said act, 
did conspire and agree with one James Q. Smith,then District 
Attorney of the United States, that he should file an infor- 
mation on the part of the United States, and an informer 
not named in the information, for the condemnation of said 
tract of land and other such tracts in his Court, and that 
the same should be condemned as forfeited to the United 
States, under the act of Congress for the confiscation of 
property used or employed in aid of the rebellion, and the 
property be thus frittered away in costs and parted and 
divided among the creatures of the said Judge; and in pur¬ 
suance of said agreement the said tract of land was so pro¬ 
ceeded against and condemned, together with others similarly 
situated, and on complaint being made to said Judge he 
falsely alleged to the Assistant Commissioner that he had 
no notice of the said section of the act of Congress, though 
it had been specially called to his attention by the counsel 
employed by General Swayne, and copied into the brief 
furnished to the Judge by him. 

Witnesses: Major General Swayne, U. S. A., Wm. E. 
Chilton, New York. 




12 


Charge III. 

Criminal ignorance of the law by Richard Busteed, Judge 
of the United States District Courts of the State of Alabama. 

Specification Is/. 

That charging the Grand Jury at the May Term* 1868, 
of said last mentioned Court, he sought to- induce them to 
find an indictment for libel against some person or persons 
who had called the attention of the public to his official 
corruption. 


Charge IV. 

That Richard Rusteed, United States District Judge for 
.Alabama, did corruptly decide cases brought before him as 
such judge, contrary to what he knew to be the lav/, and 
from personal, pecuniary, or other base motives. 

Specification 1*/. 

In this, that in the case of Nickerson vs. Smith Cullum, 
George Holmes, and William Knox, sued as late partners 
composing the firm of S. Cullum & Co., Bankers, in* the 
District Court of the United States for the Middle District of 
Alabama, at the Spring Term, 1866, of said Court, which 
was an action brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defend¬ 
ants to recover the amount of a bill of exchange sent by 
them to the Defendants for collection in the spring, of 1861, 
and which was paid to them at maturity, in April, 1861, by 
the acceptor, but the proceeds were not remitted. The 
proof in the case was clear and not controverted that the 
Defendants received* the bill in the usual course of their 
business as Bankers; that it was paid at maturity, and that 
the Defendants were partners at the time of its receipt and 
payment, and no special defence whatever was set up by 
said Knox, but the said Knox was- at that time an intimate 
friend of said Busteed, who frequently sojourned at Knox’s 


13 


house. Upon the foregoing evidence said Busteed, corruptly 
and to favor Knox, charged the jury, that if they believed the 
evidence, they must find for the Plaintiffs, as against Cullum 
and Holmes, and for the Defendant Knox, and the jury 
rendered a verdict accordingly. 

Witnesses : J. T. Holtzclaw, Montgomery, Alabama ; D. 
S. Troy, Montgomery, Alabama. 

Specification 2 d. 

In this, that in the case of Martin & Graydon vs. Rose 
Morgan, as administratrix of James Morgan, deceased, in the 
said Court at the Spring Term, 1867, thereof, the Defend¬ 
ants pleaded “ ue unques administratrix that in fact she 
was not the administratrix of James Morgan, deceased, when 
the suit was brought, the action being founded upon a con¬ 
tract or undertaking of said James Morgan before his death, 
to which the Defendant, who was his widow, was not a party. 
The said Busteed corruptly decided that the Plaintiff was 
not bound to prove that the Defendant was in fact the admin¬ 
istratrix of James Morgan, deceased, and, on proof of the 
debt against him, (James Morgan,) charged the jury to 
render a verdict for the Plaintiff, which was accordingly 
done. 

Witnesses: D. S. Troy, Montgomery, Alabama; Wm. P. 
Chilton, New York. 

Specification 3d. 

In this, that in the case of Harper vs. Graves and others, 
at the Spring Term, 1867, of said Court, which was an action 
under the statutes of Alabama in the nature of an action of 
ejectment, brought to recover possession of certain lands 
fiom the Defendants, who were the temporary tenants in 
possession under Mrs. Amaranth L. Gayle, who claimed title 
to the land, the said Busteed corruptly refused to permit the 
landlord of said tenants to be made a party Defendant to 
said suit, and corruptly refused to consider or hear evidence 


14 


of her title to said land, or of her right to the possession 
thereof, her right being clear and undisputed under the 
statutes of Alabama, (by virtue of which the action was 
brought,) and charged the jury in said cause, that they must 
find a verdict for the Plaintiff, which they accordingly did 
(the said Busteed having arbitrarily and corruptly announc¬ 
ed from the bench previously that he would imprison any 
juror who should presume to find a verdict contrary to his 
charge,) and thereupon a judgment was rendered, upon 
which a writ of possession issued, and an aged and helpless 
lady was turned out of a house and home, to which her title 
was unquestionable. 

Witnesses: D. S. Troy, Montgomery, Alabama; T. H. 
Watts, Montgomery, Alabama. 

Evidence .—Record cf the Court in said case. 

Specification 4 th. 

That in the case of the United States and informer vs. 192 
bales of cotton, Josiah Morris and others, adverse claimants, 
tried at the Fall Term, 1867, of said Court, the said Busteed 
corruptly refused to hear evidence of the title of said Morris 
to said cotton, well knowing the said evidence to be legal 
and relevant. 

Witnesses : Samuel F. Rice, Montgomery, Alabama ; W. 
P. Chilton, New York ; A. Martin, Montgomery, Alabama; 
D. S. Troy, Montgomery, Alabama. 

Members of the Montgomery Bar, and others attending 
the Court. 


Charge V. 

That Richard Busteed, United States Judge of the Dis¬ 
trict Courts for the State of Alabama, did corruptly combine 
and conspire with James Q. Smith, then United States Dis¬ 
trict Attorney, and John Hardy, then United States Marshal, 
to oppress, defraud, and extort money from parties litigant 


15 


in the District Court of the United States for the Middle 
District of Alabama, under color of and by virtue of their 
respective offices as Judge, Marshal, and Attorney of said 
Court. 

Specification ls£. 

In this, that said James Q. Smith as District Attorney of 
the United States as aforesaid, immediately after entering 
upon the duties of said office, to wit, in the months of August, 
September, and October, A. D. 1865, filed a large number 
of libels and informations in said Court, to wit, about one 
thousand, against the estate, property, and effects of different 
individuals, alleging the property, estate, and effects of said 
persons to be subject to seizure and confiscation, by reason 
of the participation of the owners thereof in the rebellion, and 
that said persons, by reason of owning more than twenty 
thousand dollars’ worth of property, were not embraced in 
the President’s Proclamation of Amnesty of May 29, 1865; 
upon which information notices issued by the Clerk of said 
Court were served by the said Marshal on the said persons 
against whom the same were filed, and in some cases publi¬ 
cation was made by the Marshal, but in no instance was the 
property of any such person actually seized or taken into cus¬ 
tody by the said Marshal—many of said persons against 
whose property said libels or informations were so filed as 
aforesaid were specially pardoned by the President of the 
United States before the service of such notice by the Mar¬ 
shal, and the remainder of them were so pardoned shortly 
after the service of such notice upon them, and all of said 
cases which have been disposed of or were dismissed on pay¬ 
ment of costs—no services were rendered in said cases except 
as above stated—yet the said Richard Busteed, well knowing 
the premises, made an order, as Judge of said Court, at the 
November Term, 1865, of said Court, that in each of said 
cases the defendant should pay costs as follows: on the 
value of the property, estate, and effects, if not more than 


16 


$20,000, one per cent.; if more than $20,000, one-half of 
one per cent, on the excess beyond $20,000 up to $30,000; 
and one-fourth of one per cent, on all over $30,000, in ad¬ 
dition to the fees of the Clerk of the Court lor issuing pro¬ 
cess, and Attorney’s and Printer’s fees, and to the Marshal 
for serving notice, whereby each of said parties were com 
pelled to pay, and did pay, to said James Q. Smith, or to 
said Hardy, a large sum, varying from one hundred and 
fifty to five hundred dollars, amounting, in the aggregate, 
to a large sum, to wit, two hundred thousand dollars, of 
which sum a large part, over and above the lawful fees of 
said Smith and Hardy, to wit, one hundred thousand dollars, 
was retained by them, with the knowledge and consent of 
said Richard Busteed, and either appropriated to their own 
use or shared with said Busteed. 

Witnesses: Fr. Bugbee, U. S. District Attorney, and the 
Dockets and Minutes of the U. S. District Court for the 
Middle District of Alabama, at Montgomery, since the close, 
of the war, and Records of the office of the Secretary of 
the Interior, and of the Treasury, and all the parties defend¬ 
ants in said causes. 

Specification 2d. 

In this, that said Richard Busteed, corruptly combining 
and conspiring as aforesaid with said John Hardy, then 
Marshal of the United States for the Middle District of 
Alabama, made an order allowing to said Hardy, in addi¬ 
tion to the fees allowed by law, a commission of ten per 
centum on the proceeds of all sales of confiscated property 
made by him as marshal for auctioneer’s fees, under and by 
virtue of which order and authority the said Hardy retained 
for auctioneer’s fees in the case of the United States vs. 192 
Bales of Cotton in said Court, in addition to all fees and com¬ 
missions allowed by law, a large sum, to wit, $1,700 as auc¬ 
tioneer’s fees for selling said cotton under the decree of said 
Court in said cause. 


17 


And in the case of H. A. Nichols vs. J. P. Steele and W. 
J. Stoddard in said Court, retained, in addition to the fees 
and commissions allowed by law, $120 as auctioneer’s fees, 
the same being ten per centum on $1,200 collected by him 

by sales of land under execution issued in said cause-, 

and a like commission of ten per centum in addition to the 
fees and commissions allowed by law in all other cases of 
sales of property confiscated to the United States made by 

him as such Marshal -, such illegal commissions 

amounting in the aggregate to a large sum, to wit. many 
thousand dollars ; all of which was done with the knowledge 
and approbation, and under and by virtue of the authority 
of said Richard Busteed, as judge as aforesaid. 

Witnesses: Peter Hamilton, Mobile - f I). S. Troy, Mont¬ 
gomery, as also returns of sales made by said Hardy in 
cases above stated, and in many other cases in the Middle 
District of Alabama. 

Sj'tecification 3d. 

In this, that said Richard Busteed as such Judge corruptly 
permitted the said James Q. Smith, as Attorney as aforesaid, 
to prosecute suits in said Court on behalf of the United 
States, and an informer without disclosing the name of such 
informer, and refused to require the said Smith to disclose 
the name of the informer in any case; and that in the case 
of the United States vs. Josiah Morris and J. F. Johnson in 
said Court, the same being a proceeding by information, on 
behalf of the United States and an informer, whose name 
was not stated in the information, against the Defendants, 
for a conversion of certain cotton, which had once belonged 
to the Confederate States, and was alleged to have become 
the property of the United States by virtue of the surrender 
of General Richard Taylor, and of the laws of the United 
States in such cases provided, the said Richard Busteed, 
having refused a jury trial to the Defendants, rendered judg- 




18 


ment against them for over thirty one thousand dollars ; and 
when said Defendants prayed a writ of error from said judg¬ 
ment, and offerred a bond to supersede the same with good 
and sufficient securities, in double the amount of said judg¬ 
ment, the said Richard Busteed, as Judge as aforesaid, cor¬ 
ruptly and with the intent wrongfully to extort said sum 
of money from said Defendants, refused to approve said 
bond, and purposely, wilfully, and corruptly avoided the ap¬ 
proval thereof, until after the lapse of the time allowed by 
law to said Defendants in which to supersede said judgment, 
and said judgment having been collected by said John Hardy 
as Marshal, the money collected by him on said judgment or 
a large part thereof, to wit, over $31,0000, was deposited 
by said Hardy in the First National Bunk of Selma, Ala¬ 
bama, and was so deposited when said Bank suspended and 
was dissolved, and the said funds so deposited, or any part 
thereof, have not yet been recovered by said Hardy nor 
by any officer of said Court, yet the said Richard Busteed, 
as Judge of said Court, proceeded to distribute said funds, 
and having decreed that one-half of the fund belonged to 
the United States, he directed the other half to be divided 
between E. E. McClosky, who claimed to be informer in the 
case, and said James Q. Smith, in different amounts, the sum 
paid to said James Q. Smith being more than half, to wit, 
over eight thousand dollars, and said Busteed. as such Judge 
corruptly directed and authorized the said John Hardy to 
pay the sums so awarded to said parties out of funds of the 
United States in his hands as Marshal, not collected in said 
cause, and the same were so paid, the said McClosky then 
was and still is notoriously insolvent, and said Richard 
Busteed, before making said distribution and ordering said 
payments, well knew him to be insolvent. 

Witnesses : Josiah Morris, Montgomery, Alabama; Samuel 
F. Rice, Montgomery, Alabama ; E. E. McClosky, Knox¬ 
ville, Tennessee; Barna McKinne, Montgomery, Alabama. 


/ 

19 

Specification kth. 

In this, that said Bichard Busteed, while presiding as 
Judge of the District Court of the United States for the 
Middle District of Alabama, at the November Term, 1865, 
at the Spring Term, 1866, at the Fall Term, 1866, and at 
the Spring Term, 1867, in cases in which the said James Q. 
Smith was of counsel for the plaintiff, habitually brow-beat 
and insulted the opposing counsel and witnesses, and decided 
questions contrary to what he knew to be the law, with a 
manifest purpose to suppress the truth and prevent the ad- 
ministrrtion of justice ; this, in many cases, and especially 
in the cases of the United States-and an unknown informer 
vs. Josiah Morris & J. F. Johnson; The United States and 
an unknown informer vs. A. F. Williamson; The United 
States and an unknown informer vs. 192 Bales of Cotton; 
John W. Harper vs. Graves & Gayle ; John C. Martin and 
John W. G-raydon, assignees vs. Bose Morgan, administratrix; 
The United States and an unknown informer vs. 2,500 
pounds of unpacked Cotton, James Fountain, claimant. 

Witnesses: H. C. Semple, Montgomery, Alabama; D. 
S. Troy, Montgomery, Alabama; S. F. Bice, Montgomery, 
Alabama; Thomas H. Watts, Montgomery, Alabama; A. 
Martin, Montgomery, Alabama; William P. Chilton, New 
York. 

(Signed) HENBY C. SEMPLE. 

Note. —The statement in the Memorial as to the character of the officers 
appointed by the Judge, was not intended to apply to the Clerk, Mr. 
Blake, who had not resided in Alabama for some twelve months ; nor to 
his Deputy, whose administration of his office was generally satisfactory. 

H. C. S. 















































































































































& * 



a* 

A 


A O * 


s *9 ^zy%m: a ^ x u ^v \ 

r\ ’ “"a '4^/^*,* £• O ** •' *) * AZZlP^ s * 

a° V **-•<?? °* *° ^ y 

r * y *°- v **^L% ^ A o v * * •«* > v * 

*.6^ • A A. *P* A + «' .A <6. 'J 




♦ ^ %• 


A % t. 0 * • ♦ '<!>. 

• _r^t\ . <* 


r *&. *. 


“V ay o * * 

*t v <*> **, ^ " 1 * ° 

^ a*& *•:«?. 5j.« a a ^ 

♦ A 

'mm/z/A”* v* 


o 

* WZ^WZ§ * .< V-*^. 

°y$w<* <y ** 

3, '«• * * A <ft * 

*- 



ft ft 


/\ ^W^-‘ ^ % 

‘o^'.w.. ^o "‘‘.4^ .->"».■% ‘ 

^ t _ A^7- « t *) 1 ft _C^<\ _ ^ T 1 




© * 0 ^ ^ - * i 

: %/?* 

ft AV ^ 0 

- ^ • 

.0 *&. 

T-A C * 1 ' *<» 

** %, C - 

^ ^ K j 

/ <r\ «> ^ / CV # , 

/ **VL% r -\ <9 V * y # *> V *L^L% e\ o f 

A*V *,v<Ss^„ # „ .A A, 'JmPbL* A - ®- *“ 






, x va : 

A V ^K 0 

4 ^ ^ ftft 

' A 

^ .-_^L“% '%> 

# ry 



\ W : 
• • 




•^d* 


O 'O , ft 

0> ft*-'* 1 ^ 4^ V C 0< !. 0 

c ^,ffZib.\ ° ,-r / 

^ K 

o5 ^ Jy 0 *7V *■ „ 

V K > ^ «KVl\\V s vV : * ^ 'O * ZyV//l/dr \ 

• * 1 A *P *0 HO* .0 "V * • f ■» • 

\ft V ^ S ° • r „ o A t • ^ ^- 

^ -1 \ySlM . r ” ’ f ~ •. ^4 I 

♦ ^ ° ^\(\ cy 

-aljrS*^ r ,j* ^ 






w : 

^ ^ o • aV^. 

« AV ^MJ fiS\)y 4 XV V. 

4 -fr H, '»•*'* X \ A O *•> 

. «•»•« ^ A y c °" ® -» <^>. 

0 A _/v^, -r 9-, a'V’ * ^ 




^ % « 

■ -. ^ %. °. 

c° °o 



\ % 5 ft ft ( ' <Y 1*0 A 

' .Vfifete' 


S ^ w 

* ^ O, ^ o ^ 

V _ _ -U ° " ° A 0 
o. < 0 ‘ « 









Jy c °* °* 

v* i ^ $ .' 



. Wft * **b 



c\ *„ 

-V °^u * ° * ° A u 

'JLHoLf* *0^ f. * • «>,► ^ 

O «$• *j=liS^ # A ♦JVW/UO 

^ *° <f\. °*liP** : . 

..^ ** *. . <^« * * 

•••*. ^ 0^ 1*‘-*’ "o 


'xr- ^ * 

vf> V 


*>v : 

V <* • 




* %, c°' »C^* °o 4$' Sj&il' ** 

/ /% "fw 0 »°% *SS#? : / % : 

V *L!£ '♦ c\ Ay *« • ®* ^ A * 5 V* 

%. a- /iSfe' % / -Wr, % a 

■<>*% W* : .P6^“ ^ 

ct» • 4 V> ^ - 



O « A 


* A v 

. -O / .^t V v 



4 O. 

1 » v<V m 


J JP 

A3' V, **,,• A* O **;<>* ,0 

r ** • o 0 *> A *® cv 

• ^ o. * 



V <* 


5> ^ 0 


- v ^ '° • * * 
-0 V *•*'** ’ u °- i 
C *W3^ % ° 

vyv ,-£• 




^ •« 

^... 
* c C\^' 

o * 
0 _ <£ 

' 'OxVs 

AlN^k. J* •/ 

o /r\ 




N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 



<* ,-0 
v> X* ^ 

. V* Cr 


4 O. 

<* 


o \0 v*, 

'^AV' *) ' ^V *4. " r -4UT‘*\* aj> O 

«»° A 0 ' ^$> **'’* °^ 

<o v ^ ^ v v ^ 

5?..^ : ' 








